• NewBearInTown

    First to say I like the new twitter avatar, though its a bit harder to spot than the previous orange pic. Good luck with the fundraising!

  • gpldan

    It’s like…. Ditka on shroomz.

  • gpldan

    Jeff – some ambiguity here – how do you feel about Trent Richardson?

    • DaBearsBlog

      Ha.

      • MikeBrownhadaPosse

        You going to sell copies of the poster?

        • Cormonster

          You getting pumped for the Nebraska game tomorrow? Big game.

  • gpldan

    Mb, Seriously, these are the worst body kits of ALL TIME. ALL TIME!

    http://www.speedhunters.com/2013/10/kaido-racers-invade-auto-legends/

  • MB30SD

    some guys are just different I guess. Maybe they didn’t grow up with big brothers or a lot of alpha friends… which is weird to me in pro sports, but it happens maybe. I just personally can’t bring those two things together in my head.

    I was never in a locker room where this kind of stuff didn’t happen on an second by second basis. It wasn’t just the norm, it’s the way things simple and plainly ARE in sports.

    http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/15/jp-howell-yasiel-puig-bullied-dodgers/?eref=sihp

    He seems like a VERY sensitive guy who takes thing WAY too personally to me, but I guess I’m just a meathead bully.

    • bearsfantillend

      just because something is the norm and or just the way things are, does not always mean they are right and should be accepted by everyone.

      a little light hearted hazing is fine – destroying someones property i think crosses a line.

  • Shady

    A Ditka look-a-like competition.

  • gpldan

    A pedophile calls Incognito a bad guy and Martin a pussy. yeah, this story has jumped the shark.

    http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/09/lawrence-taylor-on-jonathan-martin/

  • Doc Nitty

    If you ask me, that picture would make a sweet-ass tattoo!

    Not a sweet ASS tattoo, but, well, you know…

  • TheBigCheesy

    Jeff,

    Do you really think Jay Cutler would take 4/60 or 5/75? Phil Rivers signed for 7/98 and that was back in 2009.

    I know Matt Ryan is a little younger and has been more successful than Cutler, but he got 6/113. Romo got 7/119.

    Now, I think that 4/60 or 5/75 is a pretty good number if your judging Jay Cutler’s WORTH…..but no way is that what I think he’d get on the open market. Christ, that’s not much more than what Mike Wallace got.

    If you’re advocating that’s as high as the Bears should offer, then I think you might as well say you suggest they let him walk (if they don’t tag him).

    Quarterbacks are getting insane $$$ these days. Matt Cassel got himself 6/62 back in 2009 for one season under Belichick

    • BillW

      I doubt Cutler will take $15 mill avg contract. In fact I suspect that’s what the franchise tag will be given the ridiculous numbers Flacco and Romo got.
      Football is too pass crazy. Not counting ST there are 22 starters and yet a QB has value far beyond one player. GB is garbage without Rodgers, a legit SB contender with him. That’s wrong.
      Need to encourage the running game more. As anothe poster said, that would cut down QB injuries too. But how is the question. Start by allowing chucks further down the field. Maybe even legalize more contact between defend and reciever. Limit the number of d players within 2 yards of the ball at the snap. Just some ideas.
      Teams are going to spend half their cap on a QB only to have bad linemen protecting him. Then the QB goes down and the season is over. It’s a real problem.

      • NewBearInTown

        Right now the market is a little crazy. There will be corrections when the Flacco deal starts to show how devastating his cap number can be to the Ravens roster for the next five years. A team will be forced to cut a QB with $50 million in dead money (Jets). A team will be forced to stick with a guy for 2-3 years because cutting isn’t doable.
        But Cheese is correct that Cutler won’t take $15mil/year. The market for a true #1 quarterback is just too desperate. Either Cutler gets a backup’s deal for like 3 years and $20 million, or else somebody believes he’s a true franchise guy and he’s signing a $100 million contract.

    • DaBearsBlog

      I don’t know where all this Cutler leverage comes from. If the franchise # is 16 next year and Bears offer him four years at that number, I think he absolutely takes it.

      • NewBearInTown

        Where are you reading that the franchise # is 16 next year? Was that before or after the Flacco, Ryan and Romo deals?

        • bearsfantillend

          the franchise number for QBs coming into this year was just under $15 mill so with those deals by Flacco, Ryan, Romo, and Stafford, its logical that $16 mill or $17 mill is the new franchise number

          • DaBearsBlog

            I expect it to be 16 and change. But I don’t see franchising Cutler as some kind of financial maneuver. I see franchising Cutler as a football decision. Why not take another year and evaluate? The downside if you have to pay him a bit more money if you win a ton.

          • bearsfantillend

            agreed, it is a football decision for evaluation.

      • Doc Nitty

        More than any other thing he’s done, how he handles the contract situation will determine how I ultimately feel about Cutler. If he’s realistic about what he’s done for this team and about wanting to win, he should take a reasonable offer. If he Flacco’s us and hamstrings this organization preventing us from being competitive at other positions, I’m done with his ass. I would rather get Kyle Orton back than have a 123 milliion dollar player. Fuck that.

      • TheBigCheesy

        Cutler’s definitely lost a lot of leverage with the Bears since his injury, thanks to McCown’s success in Trestman’s system. But that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t command a ton of attention in free agency. He still has leverage as it pertains to the rest of the league. He’s a top 15 (some say top 10?) Quarterback in the NFL…..that’s the biggest chip there is at an NFL negotiating table.

        The other thing I’m not so sure about is the feasibility of the Franchise tag. First of all, that $16 mill number you’re talking about is the Non-exclusive Franchise tag. Under the non-exclusive franchise tag, Cutler can still talk with other teams. if another team makes him an offer, Chicago can either match it or they will receive 2 first round picks as compensation. (that would actually be a pretty sweet deal for Chicago if they got 2 firsts out of it).

        But if they don’t wanna risk other teams talking with him, they’ll have to use the Non-exclusive franchise tag, which is more expensive.

        There is also the fact that players hate the franchise tag. Obviously, these guys are pros, but we’ve seen it time after time how disgruntled they get. If Chicago wants to tag him for a year or two, you can most likely kiss that hometown-discount goodbye when it comes to a new contract. I’m sure Cutler doesn’t want to be tagged, which will mean he’d be more likely to sign a smaller contract to avoid that. However, the Bears also want to avoid the tag so they’d be willing to offer a little more to prevent it.

        I’ve always felt that the franchise tag is a “no-brainer” in several situations, and I especially do for this one. However, for some reason it seems like organizations just don’t like to use it if they can avoid it.

        It’s also possible that Cutler has leverage in Brandon Marshall. It’s not inconceivable that Marshall will reach negatively to any hardball that Emery plays with Cutler (especially if they let him walk), and it could affect BM’s contract and/or future.

        • bearsfantillend

          Marshal played several years without Cutler in Miami and was successfull with multiple 100+ catch seasons, so no real leverage there. Also that was before Marshall accepted his mental problems and learned to deal with it better. The front office should not take that relationship into account.

    • bearsfantillend

      If you compare 4yrs/60 or 5/75 to what Detroit gave Stafford last year at 5yrs/76. its right on track. The Bears have a leverage advantage in this case because Cutler has not been able to stay healthy. Which makes Cutler even more comparable to Stafford in that the fact that the rest QBs mentioned have been relatively healthy throughout their careers.

      • TheBigCheesy

        I definitely noticed the Stafford contract and I agree that Cutler and Stafford are relatively comparable assets (i’d even give Stafford the edge because of his age). I thought Stafford’s contract was pretty reasonable. But then again I look at Flacco, Matt Ryan and Tony Romo and their inflated contracts and it’s just hard for me to imagine Cutler getting significantly less than them. I think Stafford’s W-L record really killed him. If he went on the market this year (and they end up winning the division), I’d bet he’d command something close to Ryan and Romo.

        • bearsfantillend

          What do you consider significantly less when it comes to Romo and Ryan’s contracts?

          • TheBigCheesy

            I consider 4/60 significantly less than 6/113

          • bearsfantillend

            i love these $100 million dollar contracts, because there is no way they will make it past yrs 3 or 4 without being restructured. The cap hits after those years are outrages. For example in 2016 Joe Flacco’s cap hit is going to be $28 mill. I will bet my right testicle that contract gets restructured before that hit. So basically all these $100mill contracts are only 3-4 year deals at anywhere between 15-20 mill a year, which is a lot. Hell give Cutler a 5yr/100 mill contract where guarantee 1st 4 years at $15mil/yr, and make year 5 not guaranteed at $40 mill. Its a numbers game on these contract, none of them will reach the end of the contracts without being restructured.

          • TheBigCheesy

            I agree with you about NFL contracts….but not when we’re talking about Franchise QB’s.

            As far as 5/100 with $40 for year 5, Cutler wouldn’t sign a contract that is back-loaded. He’d obviously want his money up front. If the number on end is outrageous, he knows he’d have a good chance of getting cut if he didn’t restructure.

            If Flacco falls off (he’s not having a great year), then yes I think he restructures or gets cut. But if the ravens continue to make the playoffs, and flacco continues his ridiculous streak (winning playoff game in every year he’s played), then there is no way he gets cut. They’ll keep paying him that money.

            If these QB’s keep playing at or above the level at which they were signed, then they don’t have to restructure towards the end of the contract (In fact, if they’re still young enough, they’ll sign extensions). You can cut a Julius Peppers or an AJ Hawk or a Charles Woodson because of an impending cap hit. But you can’t cut your franchise QB just because you don’t want to pay him the 25 million.

          • bearsfantillend

            i didnt say they would cut Flacco or Cutler, i was just trying to say after the guaranteed money is used up the contract doesnt really matter much, and will get restructured, a team that is going to be successful cant take a $28mill cap hit in one year for one player. the contracts are going to be restructured. Teams will tell the player in the best interest of the team we need to restructure and an extension will be given,or if they sucked up they will be cut at that time. As far as my example i was being facetious, because the contract doesnt matter after the guaranteed money. Guaranteed money on contracts are usually paid within the first 4 years of the contracts if not sooner.

  • gpldan

    Trac – got you covered here

    Are you not afloat? Is this not why you are here?

  • Trac

    Sorry for offending you GP but sometimes perception is reality. I’m thankful that thier are honest hardworking ethical attorneys but I can see how my post could easily have offended you. It wasn’t my intention.

    • gpldan

      Trac –

      What are you talking about? I think you have your ballbusters confused – you might be thinking of Crown. I work in finance. And it has nothing to do with my post above which is full of big lulz.

  • Sactowns#1

    I hate to say it but I agree. If i only showed up to work 4 days a week i doubt I would be geting paid.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/63099/jaworski-bears-shouldnt-pay-cutler

    • gpldan

      I agree as well.

      I like Cutler, but the next few years will illustrate the “Flacco Lesson”, and that pick against the Lions deep in scoring position came from a place that is un-fixable no matter how good the QB whisperer is.

    • tobijohn

      I have to agree as well. I acknowledge that Cutler’s abilities far exceed Josh McCown’s. But if Josh’s success within Trestman’s system so far this year turns out to be legitimate and not a fluke, I can’t help but wonder what that $15 mil could be used for instead. If you can buy a defense that will hold opposing teams to around twenty points a game then even if Cutler might easily be putting forty on the board as opposed to McCown managing only something in the high twenties, does it really matter?

  • gpldan
  • 4ever85 (AKA Butch Deadlift)

    Would $100M be enough to get this hacker out of prison? I guess not:

    “Nearly 5 million emails obtained in the Stratfor hack were turned over
    to WikiLeaks by Hammond and published as the “Global Intelligence
    Files.” They revealed domestic spying on activists, including Occupy Wall Street.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/jeremy-hammond-sentenced_n_4280738.html?ref=topbar

  • bearsfantillend

    No More contract talks from me!!!
    Flacco Dead!!!!
    Bears 31 Ravens 17.

  • 4ever85 (AKA Butch Deadlift)

    So, you’re debating whether you want a sport’s car or a volvo. Maybe this will push you to the Volvo camp.

    http://youtu.be/M7FIvfx5J10

    • Cormonster

      Word. Testing.

      • MB30SD

        Word. Van damme

© Da' Bears Blog